THE PRESIDENT: It's my honor to welcome Lord Robertson back to the
Oval Office. I think we've met, gosh, five -- four or five times
since I've been the President. I've enjoyed every meeting. He does a
great job at NATO. NATO is an incredibly important part of U.S.
foreign policy. I appreciate the alliance.

We are mainly discussing issues that we will confront and/or deal
with in Prague, including NATO expansion. He's soliciting the views of
the administration. I told him that we would give him a definite
answer about our views on expansion in a couple of weeks, and that
timetable seemed satisfactory with him.

LORD ROBERTSON: I'm delighted to be again in the Oval Office, Mr.
President.

And the President has shown, not just by meetings with me, but in
every other way possible his and his administration's commitment to
NATO and to the strength of this trans-Atlantic alliance that has bound
together these democratic and freedom-loving states over all of the
years.

We're now a month to the day away from the Prague Summit, probably
the most important summit meeting in NATO's history, a transformation
summit where NATO has to transform itself to deal with the threats and
the challenges of the 21st century. And I believe we will have a good
package on new members, a robust enlargement, new capabilities to deal
with terrorism and to deal with the other challenges and nightmares
that we may face ahead in the future, and new relationships with
Russia, with Ukraine, with our partner countries, building the world's
largest permanent alliance and one on which the world can rely on.

THE PRESIDENT: Three questions. Fournier.

Q Sir, is North Korea an imminent threat to the United States
and what consequences, if any, will it face for hiding its nuclear
program from you?

THE PRESIDENT: One, we had a bit of troubling news when we
discovered the fact that, contrary to what we had been led to believe,
that they were enriching uranium with the idea of developing a nuclear
weapon. I say troubling news, obviously, because we felt like they had
given their word they weren't going to do this.

I view this as an opportunity to work with our friends in the
region and work with other countries in the region to ally against
proliferation of serious weapons and to convince Kim Chong-il that he
must disarm. To this end, I'm going to be talking to Jiang Zemin at
Crawford. I look forward to a good discussion with the President of
China about how we can work together to take our relationship to a new
level in dealing with the true threats of the 21st century.

I will see the leaders of Japan and South Korea and Russia the next
day, in Mexico. I intend to make this an important topic of our
discussions. This is a chance for people who love freedom and peace to
work together to deal with a -- to deal with an emerging threat. I
believe we can deal with this threat peacefully, particularly if we
work together. So this is an opportunity to work together.

Q They're not an imminent threat, though?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, that's an operative word. We view this
very seriously. It is a troubling discovery, and it's a discovery that
we intend to work with our friends to deal with. I believe we can do
it peacefully. I look forward to working with people to encourage them
that we must convince Kim Chong-il to disarm for the sake of peace.
And the people who have got the most at stake, of course, in this
posture are the people who are his neighbors.

Arshad.

Q Mr. President, can you explain so the boys in Lubbock can
understand --

THE PRESIDENT: Crawford or Lubbock?

Q Lubbock or Crawford, both --

THE PRESIDENT: Lubbock is a little more sophisticated than
Crawford, Arshad. (Laughter.)

Q Crawford, then.

THE PRESIDENT: Or Scotland, for that matter.

Q Why --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Arshad.

Q Why you threaten military action against Iraq, but you believe
that Korea's nuclear weapons program only merits diplomatic efforts?

THE PRESIDENT: Saddam Hussein is unique, in this sense: he has
thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years. The United Nations has
passed 16 resolutions to deal with this man, and the resolutions are
all aimed at disarmament, amongst other things. And for 11 years, he
said, no, I refuse to disarm.

Now, what makes him even more unique is the fact he's actually
gassed his own people. He has used weapons of mass destruction on
neighboring countries and he's used weapons of mass destruction on his
own citizenry. He wants to have a nuclear weapon. He has made it very
clear he hates the United States and, as importantly, he hates friends
of ours.

We've tried diplomacy. We're trying it one more time. I believe
the free world, if we make up our mind to, can disarm this man
peacefully.

But, if not -- if not, there's -- we have the will and the
desire, as do other nations, to disarm Saddam. It's up to him to make
that decision and it's up to the United Nations. And we'll determine
here soon whether the United Nations has got the will, and then it's up
to Saddam to make the decision.

Stretch.

Q Mr. President, again, for the good people of Crawford --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. It's been a big day for Crawford.

Q If you can explain this in a way that they and the rest of us
will understand. There is some hints over the weekend, the possibility
that taking weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq is our goal,
raising the possibility or the implication that he could somehow remain
in power.

Can you say authoritatively and declaratively whether you can
achieve -- if you can achieve your aims there in a way that leaves him
still in office?

THE PRESIDENT: The stated policy of the United States is regime
change because, for 11 years, Saddam Hussein has ignored the United
Nations and the free world. For 11 years, he has -- he said, look,
you passed all these resolutions; I could care less what you passed.
And that's why the stated policy of our government, the previous
administration and this administration, is regime change -- because
we don't believe he is going to change.

However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United
Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that
everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has
changed.